500,000 US dollars claiming to campaign for mayor of Los Angeles! “CPC raise military spending” remarks again publicly

On recent social media platforms, a video of up to tens of centimeters of cash stacked on a wooden table in the park has sparked a wave of public opinion at home and abroad. The video’s protagonist, the Chinese Red Don (“Xiang Tang”) who had been red on the streets of Los Angeles for selling high-priced Chinese sauce sandwiches, once again stood at the forefront of the wave. In the video, he claimed that the “500,000 dollars in cash” in front of his eyes was the first sponsorship provided by a Chinese toothpaste brand for his “Los Angeles Mayor’s Campaign 2030” and publicly recruited more “King Daddy” to society.

However, the “dramatic campaign” that appears to be rooted in the grass is facing an unprecedented legal and compliance crisis. Multi-party reports have been sent to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Tax Service (IRS) and the California Commission for Fair Political Practice (FPPC). The “Political Campaign” flagship show not only violates multiple red lines in federal and local campaign fiscal laws, but also triggers a deep investigation into “immigration fraud” and “national security risks” because of the sensitive political discourse behind it.

Political show: from “Sugar Cake” to “500,000 Cash Campaign”

In Los Angeles, he quickly gained hundreds of thousands of fans on the short video platform with the sale of high-priced Chinese sausages (up to $60 per single sale) and the "contradiction sense" of communicating with customers by translating software.

However, its past trajectory has been accompanied by a high level of controversy.From the arrest of unproven bullies, partnership disputes, to the recent years by accumulating street popularity through "free sending cakes" to wanderers in Los Angeles' poor neighborhoods, Mr. Dong announced at this high-profile this year that he will run for mayor of Los Angeles.

In the latest video, the little Tang dressed in a white T-shirt sits in front of the park dining table, facing a bunch of hundred-dollar banknotes:

“It’s sponsorship for me to support my campaign for mayor of Los Angeles... and $500,000.”

He then said more directly that the campaign would require at least $5 million, and publicly called: “Hopefully there will be more sponsors in support of Don Mayor in addition to Pust (Tandpasta) ... When Don Mayor’s King’s Father.” at the end of the video, “Supporting Don’s campaign for the mayor of Los Angeles” is accompanied by a joyful applause, directly qualifying the act as “political campaign fundraising.”

Touching the Red Line: A Double Legal Storm of Giant Cash and “Foreign Fund Interference”

Senior campaign fiscal law experts and several observers pointed out that the behavior shown in the video would seriously violate the three-tier legal systems of the U.S., California and Los Angeles City once it was established as real campaign fundraising.

Extremely excessive cash donations: Under the California Political Reinvestment Act and the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission Campaign Funding Regulations, a single cash donation to a public office campaign may not exceed a maximum of $100 (some are lower locally).

The “absolute prohibition zone” for foreign nationals and entities: The notification document and video explicitly mentions the sponsorship of companies such as “Pust Dentistry Company.” Under the U.S.C. Federal Code (52 U.S.C. § 30121), it is strictly forbidden for any foreign nationals, foreign companies or foreign governments to directly or indirectly fund any election in the United States. The deliberate absorption or recruitment of foreign electoral funds will face serious criminal charges.

Identity and Qualification Review Questions: The candidacy for mayor of Los Angeles must be for U.S. citizens who have the right to vote. Mr. Dong is currently only in the stage of transferring identity or applying for asylum, a foreign citizen who is not eligible for election to recruit funds for political activities, has raised the legal community to question his suspicion of “political fraud” or “illegal money laundering.”

Sensitive dead-end: “Double Position” and immigration fraud suspicion

In addition to the allegations of illegal campaign funding, the reporting materials that have triggered the shock of overseas Chinese circles and the legal community are the "political ideological suits" and sensitive issues related to national security.

According to several sources, Mr. Dong was suspected of applying for political asylum after entering the United States in order to obtain legal status in the United States. However, in his publicly released videos and live broadcasts, he repeatedly showed the opposite extreme political stance. Some records showed that he had openly declared that if a military conflict occurred, he would "stand on the Golden Gate Bridge and welcome" and "donate the money earned in the United States as military expenses".

This highly sensitive statement has raised severe questions in the legal community about the legitimacy of their immigration status:

The legal risks of “asylum fraud”: The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stipulates that political asylum is granted only to those who face real risk of persecution in their country of origin. While using asylum mechanisms to apply for U.S. identity, while publicly declaring donations to overseas military forces, this constitutes direct false statements and immigration fraud. This is enough to serve as a iron certificate for immigration courts to reject their application and initiate the expedited removal procedure.

triggering national security assessments: In the current sensitive context of U.S.-China relations, the talk of “raising military funds for overseas military forces” and “recruiting Chinese companies to intervene in U.S. public office campaigns” has gone far beyond the ordinary cyber-sensing scope.

This extreme speech, which seamlessly switches between “asylum seeking” and “crying for patriotism”, has been rated by several legal experts as typical “ideological speculation” – using the political sensitive topics of the two countries to create antagonisms, and completely play serious national security and immigration issues as the flow code for personal seizures.

Core questioning and regulatory prospects

Faced with publicly released evidence, we summarize the central focus of the regulatory authorities' next investigation:

Is the $500,000 in the video stuff or real underground cash transaction? if it is real money, is it involving unreported income, tax evasion or cross-border money laundering?

Corporate role verification: Do business entities such as the “Pust Dentures” really participate in the fundraising; are they circumventing regulation in the form of commercial sponsorship, or are they substantially involved in political donations?

Joint Enforcement Proceedings: Have law enforcement agencies formally jointly filed their financial chains, tax records, and immigration qualifications for joint reports submitted to ICE, the FBI, the IRS and the California FPPC?

Fifth, Conclusion: Serious laws do not allow “traffic deconstruction”

In the era of short video, it is not uncommon to use exaggerated speech to gain traffic and business. However, forcing “foreign identity”, “huge overseas cash”, “military spending” and “American local elections” is not only a provocation to the dignity of the law, but also simplifies the serious national security and democracy system into an absurd business show.

As of the day before the announcement, the Los Angeles City Ethics Committee and the California FPPC had not yet issued an official statement. The “Susannah Mayor” horror would eventually end with a traffic harvest or evolve into a multinational campaign illegal and immigration fraud case, and the law would soon give answers.

(Responsibility Statement: This report is based on facts and analysis based on public reporting materials, video evidence and campaign law provisions. The persons involved in the case should be presumed innocent before the final conclusion of the regulatory authority is made.)